Bystander,<P>It used to bother me considerably that my "wife's boyfriend" was chugging beer on my nickle. I would go over to look after the kids for a night, and there would be his brand of beer, right there in my beer fridge.<P>I'm going through a phase right now where I think the support is a small price to pay to have her off of my back. Plus it put a limit to the amount she could take out of my account in a given month. She was a lot more expensive to be married to than divorced from.<P>Still, the injustice is there. That money belongs to the kids, not the boy-pond-scum-sucking-friend. Considerring she recently depleated the kid's entire college fund to "make ends meet", I think it's ridiculous that she can take her boyfriend on vacation in almost the same breath.<P>But, until the kids turn 12, they have no rights to decide for themselves. Even then it's complicated. My only hope is she meets somebody even more crazy than the last boyfriend and they decide to run away together. They could leave the kids with me no problems at all no questions asked and could you just sign this before you go please? Thank you.

Nonplused,<BR>I'm really sorry for the crap that your wife has put you thru. I do not take money from my H to live off of. I take care of my kids with it. There is a part of me that would like to take everything he has but what good would that do me? I would still be unhappy. (Even though he's the one having the affair and I get angry when I think that he may be buying stuff for her). <P>I was never an extravagant spender. I paid the bills and bought what the kids needed and hardly ever bought myself anything. I always felt guilty if I bought anything else for me. I could always think of other things to do with the money other than buying myself that new pair of shoes. I can honestly say that I did without out things so that I did without things the whole time we were married.<P>It looks like we're all in the same boat. Pi**ed off at the spouse!

<BR>nonplused:<P>Call me a wild-eyed dreamer, but I'd like to end the kind of abuse you're enduring. And a default of joint physical custody (with no money changing hands) would be a huge step in the right direction. What you're going through is morally wrong, and it angers me. <P>Mitzi:<P>You did the irght thing keeping your children away from a heavy drug user. Also, I can tell that you'd have absolutely no problem accounting for everything you spend on your children. This tells me a lot about how you value fairness, even when faced with something as unfair as having a partner betray you. You're a good person, and it shows.<P>Bystander

The OM who had an affair with my wife was her gynocologist. I am still considering a lawsuit if my marriage breaks up. <P>He knew better and knew what he was doing.

Bystander,<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The fact is, the income of the second spouse - whether custodial or non-custodial - is<BR> not considered in child support calculations. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>This is not the case in my state. The custodial parent is allowed to subtract $15000 plus daycare expenses from his/her income. The remainder is figured as a percentage of total income, and the basic child support amount is reduced by that much. For example, if both spouses earned $50000 a year, the ratio would be 35000/100000, or 35%. The originally calculated child support amount would be reduced by 35%. <P>In my case, the marginal cost for additional housing space is very high. The cost of housing for one person is far lower than that for seven. <P>What do you think custodial parents spend all that "extra" money on? Yes, I do eat every day, and I have actually spent as much as twenty dollars on a dress for myself. I spend almost all of what little disposable income I have the same way I have always spent it - on the children.<P>You are lucky that the mandatory child support amount would exceed your monthly budget. Unfortunately, for us, our monthly expenses exceed not only child support, but my H's entire take-home pay.

<BR>Nellie,<P>My writing was ambiguous. When I said that the income of the second spouse isn't counted in child support payments, I mean the income of the new wife (and/or new husband) doesn't count. Example: Person A marries Person B. They have children, and Person A files for divorce to be with an OP, who we'll call Person C. The notorious "income shares" awards account for the income of Persons A and B in calculating income, but not the income of Person C.<P>Which brings me to the point that if you married a multimillioniare, you could, under the current law, continue to take 50% of your husband's pay, even though *you* would then be "doing better" than him.<P>There's another huge problem with the income shares system, too. Its really a form of slavery because the awards are based on "earning capacity" and courts will assign an "imputed income" onto noncustodial parents. This can lead to some very interesting, and morally indefensible, outcomes. Say your husband is a nuclear engineer who can earn $100k a year in a nuke plant, but only $50k a year in a non-nuke plant job. Now, lets say his doctor has just found evidence that he's very likely to get leukemia if he contines to be exposed to radiation at the nuke plant. For health reasons, he needs to switch jobs to the $50k position, but if he does that the notorious "income shares/imputed income" laws will expect him to continue paying child support at the $100k, and he'll soon be bankrupt and thrown in jail. Is it moral to tell this man that he faces radiation to death or an inevitable felony conviction plus jail time, all in the name of "income shares?" I just don't think so.<P>As for me being "lucky" that the child support would cover all the bills, perhaps you missed my point. Specifically, such an award would amount to a *total living subsidy* for my spouse. Child support is supposed to pay for half of the children's expenses, not serve as a veiled form of near-perpetual alimony. Such a judgment would be ridiculously unfair, but that's how the laws have been written.<P>Again, my overall point is this. Someone asked the question, "What would lower the rate of adultery?" I firmly believe that, *on average*, the "income shares" system awards far too much money in child support, and any woman in a suboptimal, but functional marriage, can simply check the budget, check her husband's paycheck, see how far she'll be ahead financially, and then go out and find herself an OM. If we want to help stop this incentive (and stop the kind of abuse that nonplused is enduring), then we'll move to a default of joint physical custody with no money changing hands. It won't always apply, but the mere fact that a betrayed husband could say, "I want the kids exactly half the time, and thus you'll get NO support" should change the hedonistic calculus in favor of less infidelity.<P>Bystander<BR>

Won't help a woman cheated on by her hesband though. In my opinion there is no way to tie adultery or any othe marraige crime to the financial settlement. Besides, if you can tie that in, why not other minor marriage crimes. Next thing you know we'll be trying to figure out who ironed who's shirts how ofter and how much that was worth, how many times she said "no", how many times he came home drunk, etc, etc. Maybe there could be a table for that too, like the child support table:<P>Came home drunk 1 night/week $50/month<BR>Sex 3 times/week 100/month<BR>Commited adultery 6000/month +castration<BR>Child support 1000/month<BR>Spoke badly of mother in law 42/month<BR>Annoying personality 13/month<BR>Cruel weight jokes 167/month<P><BR>I like the idea of no money at all changing hands though. That way I would get the money back, which I can do with out, and the kids back, which i can't.

I don't think that there is really anyway to decrease adultry in the US. How could it possibly happen when our own President commits it and gets away scott-free.<P>In the military adultry IS a FELONY, if the members of the US Military commit adultry they are strictly, and harshly punished to the extent of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This ruins their career, costs' them their pay,cost them their rank, they can be discharged, and even imprisoned.(trust me, my W found out the hard way) <P>I think that if the civillian community were to adopt some of the regulations that the military has about adultry, repeat offenders would be no more, and would be offenders would give it more thought. <BR>Just my 2 cents<BR>JW

<BR>nonplused,<P>I agree with you that its infeasible to retroactively tie marriage crimes to a financial settlement. But that's not my point.<P>I think the "income shares" system of awarding child support (on average) *does* award more support than is needed. Thus, it financially incents women in suboptimal marriages to leave, rather than stay and work on the marriage. Again, do we really want women to check the budget, check the husband's paycheck, see how far ahead they'll be, and then check their little black book for an OM's cellphone number? IMO, that's exactly what we're doing now.<P>You say it won't help women betrayed by men, but I'm not really sure how you'd want to help these women anyhow. Is a betrayed woman entitled to a living subsidy just because her husband earns slightly more than she does? If you'll say yes to that, then we're back to the issue of trying to tie marriage crimes to the financial settlement. And we already agreed we can't go there. So my argument would be that moving to a default of joint custody basically takes the finances out of the equation, regardless of which gender is the betrayer.<P>And another reason I believe in a default of joint physical custody with no money changing hands: I really think its better for the kids.<P>Bystander

Nonplused<P>You are correct a 50/50 child custody with *no money changing hands* would not help a woman cheated on by her H. Actually that would be more of an INCENTIVE to *some* people who want to commit adultery. After all not only would they be able to wash their hand of their spouse but they could do so without having to put out one dime towards the children's support when they are with the other parent.<P>I still believe financial consequences can be in part affective for some, when it comes to adultery. Think about it... if you wife who was a SHAM would have known if she had an affair and divorced you she would not only NOT be the custodial parent but she would also have to support the kids 100% when they were spending time with her AND living with you perhaps she would have had second thoughts about going down the wrong path.<P>As far as the cute little list of wrong doings and the penilties you proposed... Very funny, ridiculous, but funny none the less.<P><BR>Bystander<P>No offense intended but if you haven't already spent A LOT of time posting in the news group alt.childsupport (and your writtings smack of the men who post there) I highly suggest you head on over there (of course with the knowledge you can post supportive and vent about your marriage and how adultery is/was affecting it on MB's). You'll find a lot of angry men who will hang on your every word.<P>You are correct when you stated the question was what will help decrease adultery. Unfortunately the answer you gave could actualy help increase it. <P>At no point did I want or even imagine this post would turn into a soap box for the debates on spousal and child support.<P>The purpose of this group is to work on building our marriages in the face of adultery. The debate of child and spousal support are not a way to help hurting people save their marriages or end them as easily as possible. <P>I'd like to see this thread locked by Steve Harely if the conversation continues to debate support issues. <P>I don't want to be associated with a topic that ends up being hurtful to read vs helpful.<P>Fingers Crossed<BR>(who isn't usually this assertive to others but is very concerned about the directions this topic is now going in)

<BR>Sweetpea,<P>What you're proposing is essentially the "income shares" model. I've already mentioned the problems it has - it incents infidelity, it is a veiled form of open-ended alimony (why should the husband support the wife at all, morally speaking?), it forces people to work in horrible jobs because of "imputed income" laws, and so on.<P>And I disagree that a joint physical custody (with no money changing hands) would be worse for the kids. The way the system is set up now, a noncustodial parent has to pay the full child support amount regardless of how much time they actually have the kids. So a father who has the kids 49.99999% of the time STILL has to make the full monthly child support payment, yet has the kids essentially half of the time and all of the costs associated with having the kids half of the time. Do you know what kind of behavior this incents? Abdication! After awhile, people get tired of paying twice for their kids (once in child support, the other in actual out of pocket costs), and they walk away. Its easy to point fingers at people who walk away, and call them "creeps," etc, but why don't we point fingers at women who snicker all the way to the bank from their child support windfalls? Why don't we hold people accountable for precisely what's spent on the children, and have any excess returned?<P>If you want to slow down infidelity, take the financial rewards out of it. IMO.<P>Bystander<BR>

<BR>Sweetpea,<P>The crux of your "roof over their heads" argument is that the children should have a decent standard of living. This isn't a bad objective per se, but I think its flatly immoral to expect one spouse to indefintely pay for another spouse's standard of living. Truthfully, I don't believe a system like you suggest would ever be justified. I'd rather face the prospect of unequal financial outcomes for the spouses than the current evils we're seeing now...not the least of which is that the "income shares" system actually incents women to betray their husbands.<P>Anyhow, I've already said that income imbalances should be addressed through alimony (to update the skillset of the lower earner), and most explicitly NOT through child support. True, one spouse's income may "never catch up" with the other spouse, but that's a consequence of a joint decision made years ago. The message we should send women is, "Ladies, protect yourselves by getting a good job" and not, "Ladies, check the monthly budget, check your husband's paycheck, see how far ahead you'll be, and then call up that OM!"<P>Bystander<BR>

<BR>Sweetpea,<P>I don't believe that one spouse should ever be expected to support the other spouse at all. Conceptually, I think you agree that such support is immoral (which is why you pointed out that such support ends when the last child is 18), but you're willing to set aside that immorality in the name of children's standard of living. Simply put, I disagree with you on this issue. You are arguing that the children shouldn't suffer, and the price you're willing to pay is the long litany of "income shares" abuses that we've already discussed. But a child isn't a meat ticket for a woman, and treating them as such, as the system currently does, is just plain sick IMO. The way the system is set up, as soon as a woman gets pregnant, she can basically tell the father, "Ha! You fool! I've got 25% of your net income for the next 20 years, chump! Your a$$ is mine, pal, and there's nothing you can do to stop me!" And you know what? Her meal ticket *is* basically in the bank. Pardon me for opposing laws that would ever permit this kind of sickening conduct.<P>My position is that we'd be less likely to even be worrying about child support if we'd take away the incentives for betrayal that are already out there now. And I disagree that golddiggers are the only ones who can do the math - it doesn't take a rocket scientist to check the budget, check the husband's paycheck, check the surplus, and start calling an OM as soon as the marriage looks a little rocky. If we want to discourage infidelity, we should take the incentives away.<P>And I also believe that joint physical custody (with no money changing hands) will be far better for the children. It will disincent the current system's perverse tendency to encourage men to walk away from their children. The only person who "loses" is arguably a SAHM, but as I've said, she's entitled to alimony to update her skillset. But if its alimony we're talking about, lets at least drop the charade of calling alimony a transfer "for the children's standard of living."<P>Bystander

I am closing this thread for several reasons. 1: It has 96 posts and keeps growing. 2: The person who began it requested that I do so. 3: It has strayed from what the original poster intended and no longer seems to have much to do with infidelity nor with marriage building.<P>Please write to me if you have any questions about this action. Thank you.<P>------------------<BR>Tempest, Moderator<BR>Marriage Builders<BR>Infidelity Forum<P>